SynthesisScientific reports2016
Evaluating the Survival Benefit Following Ovarian Function Suppression in Premenopausal Patients with Hormone Receptor Positive Early Breast Cancer.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The lncRNA AFAP1-AS1 is upregulated in metastatic triple-negative breast tumors and controls hypoxia-activated vasculogenic mimicry and angiogenesis.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Patient preferences and adherence to adjuvant GnRH analogs among premenopausal women with hormone receptor positive breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are divergent opinions regarding the use of ovarian function suppression or ablation (hereafter, OFS) in hormone receptor positive early breast cancer patients. In order to clarify the survival benefit of OFS, a meta-analysis was performed. The result is that use of OFS was more effective than no OFS on DFS (the pooled relative risk (pRR) = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75-0.96) and on OS (pRR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.70-0.89). In subgroup analysis, we found that increased DFS was positively associated with patients who had received chemotherapy (pRR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74-0.96), who were lymph node negative (pRR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.61-0.91) and were less than 40 years old (pRR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.59-0.83). There was a significant difference in OS between the groups receiving chemotherapy (pRR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58-0.89) or for patients less than 40 years old (pRR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.18-0.87). The use of OFS also produces statistical differences in the occurrence of the side-effects; severe hot flashes (pRR = 2.32; 95% CI: 1.36-3.97), and hypertension (pRR = 1.54; 95% CI: 1.12-2.12). In general, OFS should be considered as one treatment for hormone receptor positive premenopausal early breast cancer patients who have received chemotherapy and are less than 40 years old. We also should pay attention to the side-effects and weigh the advantages and disadvantages before deciding on using OFS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.